Loading ITAT cases…
317 orders · Page 2 of 7
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal because the assessee failed to provide evidence that the property was agricultural land. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unrepresented during the first appeal and thus could not substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity to present their case. The rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) for non-compliance with the show-cause notice was deemed to be without sufficient opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of bad debts deduction to the AO for verification. For disallowance under Section 14A, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration. The disallowance of contribution to the staff welfare fund was upheld against the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not produce certain statutory documents, leading the AO to estimate profit at 8%. While the assessee claimed their net profit was between 3-5% and provided ledger accounts and cash vouchers, the CIT(A) doubted the audit report's genuineness. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-verify the audit report and decide the profit estimation afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte. Considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained Form No. 10AC but could not submit it by the deadline due to the auditor's ill health. The Tribunal opined that the assessee should be given another opportunity to submit the required document.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without awaiting the decision on the condonation petition. The assessee's inability to file the return on time due to the Managing Trustee's death and the pending condonation petition warrant consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was remitted back.
The Tribunal noted that inadequate submission of details and evidence was central to the controversy regarding the admissibility of interest expenses. It was observed that the assessee had filed additional submissions, but it was unclear if these were considered by the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings. Given that the ends of justice would be met by providing one last opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal noted that inadequate submission of details and evidence at the lower levels was the core issue. Considering the ends of justice, the assessee was granted one last opportunity to present their case and file supporting evidence before the AO.
The Tribunal noted the inadequate submission of details and evidences by the assessee before the lower authorities. Considering that the Assessing Officer is the primary authority to examine facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one last opportunity to present her case and file supporting evidences before the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's super senior age and medical reasons. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive the notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to the ex-parte order. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order.
In light of the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the VSVS scheme, the tribunal considered the appeal dismissed as withdrawn. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the assessee's justification was adequate and the Ld. DR did not pose serious objections. The Tribunal found that the PCIT(E) had not considered the assessee's electronically filed response. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, to meet the ends of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the interest of natural justice. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the matter afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without discussing the merits, which violates principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the appellant's failure to appear properly and respond to notices, decided to grant another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient reasons for the belated filing due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The issues raised in the appeal were restored to the files of the CIT(A) for proper representation, with the undertaking of the assessee's AR to cooperate.
The tribunal held that the appeal filing period fell within the period excluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the circumstances of Covid-19, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's failure to receive notices. The assessee was directed to provide all evidence to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits. The assessee claimed the cash deposits were from their business and already taxed, and the addition would lead to double taxation. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's unfamiliarity with email and the consultant's lapse.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to represent before the CIT(A) and the validity of the revenue's arguments, set aside the impugned order. This was done to provide another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons, including members being admitted to the hospital due to Covid-19, and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to multiple hearing notices despite having an email ID on record. However, considering the short time given to respond and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the Covid-19 pandemic. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not properly represented themselves before the lower appellate authority. While acknowledging the Revenue's submissions, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the AO for a denovo assessment, directing the assessee to provide all evidence and documentation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the case on merits and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. In the interest of justice and in view of the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were passed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was premature because the matter was pending before the Interim Board of Settlement. The High Court had ruled that applications filed between February and March 2021 are deemed pending. Therefore, the penalty order is restored to the AO's file to await the final verdict of the Settlement Board.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
Noting the assessee's opting for the DTVSV Scheme and the issuance of Form No.2, the appeal is treated as disposed of as withdrawn. The assessee is granted liberty to restore the appeal if the DTVSV resolution fails.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and the interest of justice. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided explanations and supporting documents for the cash and cheque collections, which were recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal found that the allegations of unrecorded collections were not correct.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal, emphasizing the principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. The authorized representative argued that the assessee is an elderly lady not conversant with tax proceedings and requested another opportunity. The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices but, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction for cooperation and no unnecessary adjournment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient time for evidence submission and also failed to appear before the lower appellate authority. While acknowledging the assessee's lack of representation, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The assessee argued that the assessment order was ex-parte and an opportunity should have been provided before passing the rectification order. A similar case was remanded by the Tribunal. The Department argued that the assessee failed to file written submissions before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary explanations and supporting evidence to the CIT(A) despite opportunities. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The assessee argued that the assessment order was ex-parte and an opportunity should have been provided before passing the rectification order. A similar case was remanded by the Tribunal. The Department argued that the assessee failed to file written submissions before the CIT(A).